Everything that I believe or see as important in life connects to leadership.

Whether it is large, causal issues, or increasing the percentage of a market share, or the R&D and release of a new product — anytime we see things that need to happen we need change-makers. In the cultural-linguistic set we have inherited, we call these change-makers leaders.

Where we see a need for change, we see a need for leadership.

The audio of this presentation is available on the podcast. Broadly speaking, it is a synthesis of leadership theory models, the history of these models, and an exploration of a few themes that have been discussed here in the past:

• We’re All Above Average?
• Leadership Napkin Doodle
• Passion Over Pleasure

You can also download…

• Audio file (MP3)
• Slidedeck (PDF)

I hope that you find the presentation thought-provoking, and most of all, I hope that it inspires you to hone your efforts and focus your vision as a change-maker on the planet.

On November 11, 2011, I presented a talk at a local Ignite event entitled, Compassion is an Exit Strategy.¹ While some of the data points are already out of date,² the main point of the presentation remains: we need to consider more systemic responses to poverty rather than simply adding more social services.

Would you be willing to take a few minutes to practically respond to some of these issues regarding our social assistance programs? I am working with a group of citizens to formulate and submit policy recommendations to our municipality and province drawn from our collective input. We have setup a website to elicit this community feedback.³ Please invest some mental energy at this site to contribute your voice.

1. Watch on YouTube; the audio of this presentation is also available on my podcast.
2. In the video I state at the maximum Ontario Works support level is $585/month, it is now $592/month. Also, in the presentation I assert that Ontario Works’ exit-to-employment ratio is 11.9% to 14.1%. This figure is taken from Julie Castonguay, Benchmarking Carrots and Sticks: developing a model for the evaluation of work-based employment programs (Amsterdam University Press, 2009-10-20), p. 295. Since delivering this presentation, municipal administrators of Ontario Works have informed that the exit-to-employment ratio is actually closer to 22%. I have not personally seen official or internal documentation to verify this figure as the current exit-to-employment ratio.
3. Please contribute your input at londonpolicyresponse.com. Deadline for input is January 28, 2012.

…many of us have taken to fighting for individual initiatives in efforts to gain the attention of governments, media, corporations, and other citizens. But where has it gotten us? The inherent problems of the larger issues remain unaddressed…¹

Pearson advocates a re-imagination of democracy outside of the narrow lines of partisan positioning and ideology. What I find infectious about his vision is that it posits a framework for civic, democratic involvement dripping with immediacy: it does not primarily focus on electing specific leaders or articulating campaign platforms, rather “political engagement” means driving society forward, quantitatively, through a coordinated civic infrastructure:

Such a group won’t be made up of special interests, but of individual citizens who form alliances with others – citizens, researchers, bureaucrats, media, etc. – to support the well-being of the entire community. It doesn’t require staff, per se, but learns to depend on expertise already present in the community and a strong volunteer spirit – citizens do the work. It encourages people to join forces, by creating networks and partnerships. In a phrase, it builds a civic infrastructure as a complementary support to the political infrastructure already in existence. The whole of its efforts will be greater than the sum of its individual parts or issues.²

Simply: being a good citizen means partnering and collaborating with your neighbors to make your community better. It is not particularly complicated.

Sadly, I fear, many of us who dwell in Western democracies have lazily concluded that “civic democracy” is synonymous with “right to vote.” Not so. In Pearson’s model of citizenship, formal political engagement plays a vital role to be certain, but the kernel of genuine civic participation will relentlessly and pragmatically work for a better society (regardless of who the elected officials happen to be at any given time).

Democracy is not simply about elections: it is about collectively exerting our collective influence for our collective good. If we neuter democracy so that it simply becomes about making check-marks on ballots, we are — to use a less-than-eloquent but extremely appropriate word — screwed. Our most direct and profound influence comes not from voting, but from simply getting organized enough to engage in some actual civic participation. To assume that democracy is going to legitimately function without the driving ingredient of civic participation is an enormous miscalculation.

Last month I had the opportunity to hear Glen lecture at a local community event on the topic of citizenship and subsequently interview him. His presentation and our discussion is posted on the podcast.

1. Glen Pearson, Citizenship – “41,654 to 10″
2. Glen Pearson, Citizenship – “Not Leaders, But Leadership”

I went to chat with the demonstrators about their personal agendas for protesting. Above all, I had a simple question: “When are you able to go home? What needs to be accomplished for this occupation to be a ‘success’?”

To listen to the responses, download the MP3 of the interviews.

As is patently characteristic of the occupy movement, there was nothing even remotely resembling a singular, unified agenda (at least not among the individuals I interviewed), and little to no consensus on a metric for success. This aimlessness is puzzling to many observers (including myself) who expend so much effort trying to define concise parameters by which to quantify the effectiveness of our actions.

However, it is clear that this lack of a sole “focus” is only a logistical “problem” for outsiders. To those within the occupation, the fact that people are gathering around the simple notion of change and equality seems to be all the invigorating incentive they need to sleep in a park at the end of October. Broadly speaking, the response to my question, “What qualifies as ‘success’ here?” was answered by a sentiment: “Success doesn’t matter — what matters is that people are coming together and supporting one another.”

The occupiers exist to announce a collective frustration with the status quo; they do not exist to present objective, rational solutions to the problems and inequities they decry. This is simply not their purpose — at least not yet. Trying to derive an agenda from Occupy Wall Street is similar to reading a Harlequin romance like a psychological research paper. These are not politicians, strategists or consultants: they are just people who are fed up with the way things are and “found” each other. To “understand” them, we must listen to their message on their own terms, not through our filters of logical productivity.

The presentation hinges on two themes: the first hinge is the assumption that all human invention is in fact “technology” that ultimately forces change on it’s own inventors and users. (The smartphone has changed society, but electric-powered refrigeration did so as well.) The second hinge is the idea that modern technology (specifically talking here about social media) converts our experience from narrative to database, or from linear happenings to nuggets of information broken down to their small divisible unit. (For those who appreciate it when rogue, freelance philosophers go nerdy — or when nerds go philosophical! –  you’ll probably enjoy this.)